28-135 IS To keep or not to keep?

[greg_koni]

I finally saved enough lunch money to buy another lense. I

currently shoot a 10D with a 28-135 IS and 70-200 f2.8L. I shoot

mostly field sports and team/player portraits. I have my eye on the

24-70 f2.8L. Do I keep the 28-135 or would it be redundant? What

is a fair price for a 28-135 IS in excellent condition worth?

[PuppyDigs]

I recently faced a similar problem: keep my girlfriend or keep my wife? Although redundant, I decided to keep them both. You would be wise to do the same. Like many things in life, "the more, the merrier!"

[casey mcallister]

Greg:

 

Keep the lense for a 'one size fits all' travel companion...

 

Granted the optics ain't all there...

 

But, it is very utiliterian...

 

At 4x6 it's hard to notice the difference...

 

Puppy:

 

With that 'lady action' does your camera ever get 'used' like your women do?

 

He He ;~}

 

Casey

[gaius1]

I have both the 28-135 IS and a Tamron 28-75 f/2.8. They overlap, but solve different problems. The IS lens excels for taking handheld shots with good depth of field in poor light of static objects. The f/2.8 lens enables me to trade DOF for a faster shutter for things that are not static (i.e. people who aren't posing for the camera). As always when the 28-135 IS is mentioned, I will complain about how much it creeps. Tho' having said that, it isn't so much of a problem with a PB-E2 fitted, as it holds the camera more level on the strap.

[holger_oortmann]

Not to keep. I had the same thoughts before I received my 24-70L. Afterwards it was a no brainer: Keeping the 24-70L and selling the 28-135 (I was very happy with my 28-135IS before I received the 24-70L)

[jbq]

The 28-135 has the following advantages:

 

-It has at least the same hand-holding capabilities

 

-It allows for more depth-of-field and more motion-blur when hand-held.

 

-It has twice the reach

 

-It is cheaper to replace if you damage it

 

It's up to you to figure out whether those advantages are worth the cost of keeping both of them.

 

What makes you decide to not go for e.g. a 17-40/4L?

[ilkka_nissila]

I didn't know that more motion blur was an advantage. Most people would prefer their subjects sharp and backgrounds blurry. Could you show us some example images which benefit from the motion blur option offered by the IS lens?

[jbq]

Ilkka: not owning an IS lens, I can't give you such examples. I have shot car races (autocross) with a non-IS x-300mm zoom, and when panning it ended up being fairly obvious that at high shutter speeds (1/500s) the background was too sharp/static for my taste, while at lower speeds (1/125s) I was having trouble keeping a steady hand and the cars ended up blurry. A good IS should be able to solve this problem. Admittedly on a shorter lens it's easier to get the same effect without IS (1/45s at a normal focal length can do wonders), and admittedly I don't know whether the IS in the 28-135 can detect panning and only compensate for motion in the opposite direction.

[grant_summerlin]

Greg-<br>

if you decide not to keep it, sell it to me! this is the next lens on my list. <br>

<br>

good luck,<br>

grant

[John Crowe]

Keep it. The 24-70 is truly a luxury lens in that it costs alot and does not deliver alot on a 10D. I can almost understand it for film or full frame since it goes fairly wide to portrait. On a 10D it gets you essentially normal to portrait. For that range I would go with a 28/2.8 and 50/1.8 which will both destroy the L zoom and then you can afford to get into a wideangle zoom with the 17-40/L and perhaps even forget the 28/2.8 if you go that route. The IS zoom makes for a useful carry around lens and it is providing you normal to telephoto angles. When you are more serious then you have the 70-200/L. Good luck!

[phyrpowr]

As a tried and true, hard and fast, 28-135 IS fan, I will say this: since you're shooting a 10D, and, I suppose, downloading and working on yur own shots, you can sell/trade it and get the 24-70 with no regrets.

 

My reasoning: since the IS is what saves the shots that otherwise would be lost due to handshake, and since you don't have to worry about the cost of film, you can use the "poor man's IS", that is, put camera on multishot drive, take five shots FOR EACH PICTURE YOU WANT, bam, bam, bam, bam,BAM!, and numbers 3 & 4 will be pretty much shake free and crisp. Load 'em and cull'em.

 

You might be kinda SOL on vacation when a nice shot comes up quickly that you can't use the above technique on, but, hey, you'll have "L GLASS", and can brag with the best of 'em.

[greg_koni]

At this point I prefer zooms to primes. The 70-200 f2.8 with a 1.4X TC serves me well with field sports. I want the 24-70 f2.8 to do the team/player portraits as well as non sporting portraits indoors and out. My original question was when I buy the 24-70, should I keep the 28-135?

[jason_kim4]

Sell it if you can get a reasonable offer. Once you get hooked on L color and contrast you won't be happy with 28-135IS rather flat images. Like you I "upgraded" to 24-70L from 28-135IS and never put it back on. Sold it after 3 month of non use. I am keeping 24/2.8 and 50/1.4 primes as one is really small and does not need external flash. And 50/1.4 for low light situations. But I hardly ever use any other lens than 24-70L and 70-200IS these days.

[steve_dunn2]

<cite>and admittedly I don't know whether the IS in the 28-135 can detect panning</cite>

 

<p>It cannot. Only the L and DO lenses have mode 2 (panning mode); the 75-300 and 28-135 lack mode 2.</p>

 

<p>Greg, if you have enough money to buy another lense[sic] without first having to sell the 28-135, then do so. Then wait a while and see if you actually still find the 28-135 useful. It can't match the optics of the 24-70, of course, but it has some advantages (smaller, lighter, might not draw as much attention as the 24-70, easier to handhold at the wide end, greater depth of field handheld toward the long end, fewer worries about how much it will cost if it's damaged or stolen).</p>

 

<p>I think after a few months you'll have your answer, and the 28-135 is not likely to lose its value during that time. As for its value, look at online auctions, online used photo equipment dealers, the used departments at your local camera stores, etc. and you should get an idea.</p>

[yakim_peled1]

At one point in time I had two 28-105 lenses. Big and heavy Tamron 2.8 and small and light Canon 3.5-4.5. As the Tamron was much better, it stayed almost all of the time on my camera. The Canon saw very little use. If I had both the 24-70 and 28-135 I have no doubt that the 24-70 would see much more use. As you also have the 70-200/2.8 I'd surely sell the 28-135. HTH.

 

Happy shooting ,

Yakim.

[andrew robertson]

The 28-135 IS creeps?

 

I can aim mine straight up or down with no creep. It's relatively new, however.

[larry_lambert1]

I've had mine four years and it still doesn't creep, but remember, these are two individual lenses from a very large production run. I might recommend that one doesn't expect any two individuals be precisely alike.

[gaius1]

Do you think I could get mine "tightened" in some way?

[marcus_erne]

My 28-135mm IS is "old" and creeps very easily. This, the plastic filter mount and the dust between the front element and the inner tube is what I dislike most about this lens.

However, it still delivers the image quality that I need and the focal range combined with the IS-feature make it extremely versatile and useful for me! I am very happy with its results...!

 

=> If money isn't an object for you, I'd keep the 28-135 despite the L-upgrade!